Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

brewster.kahle.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#71

Post by frio »

phkahler wrote: post #64
api wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only mechanism I'm aware of that truly allows anonymity over your own connection (or a connection that can be tied to you) is onion routing. On top of that, you must do it from a separate device or isolated VM to prevent hardware fingerprinting. Anything less than that is like using snake oil crypto: it might make you feel good, but it's not really there.

>> The only mechanism I'm aware of that truly allows anonymity... We have a need for both solid anonymity and zero anonymity. I think the first step is to be able to authenticate whom you are communicating with, and to reach them without a central authority. After that, you can choose to strip identifying information, or build a web of trust, or anything else. I think privacy can be built on top of an authenticated n…

For a long time, I've thought the phrase we want is "strong pseudonymity".

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#72

Post by nekopa »

dublinben wrote: post #60
nekopa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not talking about the legal aspects, but, (and I really, really hate to bring up the "think about the children!" argument here) what about if I am unknowingly helping people who create and share child porn? It doesn't matter (to me) if I am on the hook for it or not, I just don't know (ethically?) how I would feel if I knew that was going on via my PC. Drugs I don't give a shit about, and I hate how the "think about…

The burden of supporting free speech is supporting speech that you may disagree with. Reputable civil liberties organizations like the ACLU regularly fight to protect the rights of groups (KKK[0], neo-Nazis[1], etc.) that they disagree with. You do not have to support the content of someone's speech to support their right to free speech. [0] https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-sp... [1] https://…

I am completely fine with free speech. Even though I hate neo-nazis with a passion, I would also stand in line to allow them to speak freely. But I have had many a bruise from fighting the neos when their speech moves to action. And I'm not talking about being an antifa who goes to protests to fight neo-nazis, but when I've seen them beating on people of colour I've jumped right in and fought them tooth and nail. (And because I'm of mixed race myself, I've had to defend my own butt on more than a few occasions)

Back to my original problem, I wouldn't want to ban child porn fiction, or such similar speech, but I would similarly fight tooth and nail to stop pedophiles swapping children amongst themselves with no repercussions. It's enabling the physical actions I have a problem with - and I'm pretty sure the ACLU doesn't defend KKK members who have actually perpetrated a hate crime.

It's a fine line, I know, but to me it's definitely an iron line...

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#73

Post by schoen »

api wrote: post #50
schoen wrote: post #49

I'm happy to see this article, and it reminds me of things that others have been talking about for some time (for example, the "Redecentralize" community). I've participated in some file-sharing litigation which has made it very clear to me that decentralized P2P systems are not inherently more anonymous than other technologies. In fact, there's a cottage industry of P2P monitoring companies that participate as peers…

The only mechanism I'm aware of that truly allows anonymity over your own connection (or a connection that can be tied to you) is onion routing. On top of that, you must do it from a separate device or isolated VM to prevent hardware fingerprinting. Anything less than that is like using snake oil crypto: it might make you feel good, but it's not really there.

Onion routing is an anonymity mechanism for low-latency communications; there could be other mechanisms that are as good or better for some settings of high-latency communications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mix_network

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#74

Post by doublerebel »

Animats wrote: post #48

Kahle's approach works only for static content. It's not hard to distribute static content; BitTorrent does it just fine. The Internet Archive stores static content. Kahle thinks in terms of static content, because that's what the Internet Archive does. But it's less of the Web today. Despite that, it's good to have a way to distribute static content. Academic publishing, after all, is almost all static content. That…

There absolutely should be distributed short-form knowledge. Only metadata needs to be exposed in order to find small facts. I don't think there is any need for payment per-datum for such knowledge. This kind of static content is simple to trust as well.

Long-form knowledge, in contrast, still has massive value and many channels exist for distribution and consumption already.

If we base the web of trust on facts combined with people then we can walk the short web and exit at the long-form.

However nobody wants to create a web of trust based on a system that encourages selfies and ephemeral knowledge -- we've tried that. And this is where things get interesting.

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#75

Post by nekopa »

joepie91_ wrote: post #62
nekopa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not talking about the legal aspects, but, (and I really, really hate to bring up the "think about the children!" argument here) what about if I am unknowingly helping people who create and share child porn? It doesn't matter (to me) if I am on the hook for it or not, I just don't know (ethically?) how I would feel if I knew that was going on via my PC. Drugs I don't give a shit about, and I hate how the "think about…

I think an important realization to make, is that you can't fully stop behaviour that you find unethical. If somebody has an incentive for doing it, then it's going to happen, somewhere, somehow, in some way. Therefore, the equation changes - it's not about what least accomodates those with (in your view) unethical behaviour, but about what most accomodates those with ethical behaviour. That is why highways and Tor m…

I don't know. I don't want to fully stop pedophiles, as I know that allows for draconian measures which hurt everyone. I know it will happen - always has, always will - but I don't want to automatically make it easier for peds. At least now they have to try hard to be safe, therefore (and I may be completely wrong here) the borderline wannabe pedophile won't go fully fledged, because there would be hurdles. And at the same time I realise that this thinking me that's normal peeps who just want some modicum of privacy also have to jump through hoops, which is why this whole thing is a problem for me.

Also, I think the whole drm analogy doesn't work in this case, though I do see where your coming from.

With my problem, the equivalent would be if adding drm made it automatically easier and safer for pirates, not just crippling legit users...

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#76

Post by scholia »

nekopa wrote: post #59
genghisjahn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still chewing on this myself. The previous interstate analogy was more of a, "I think I think this."

Fair enough.

The Interstate analogy was used to encourage the adoption of the Internet.

Al Gore Senior "was instrumental in sponsoring and enacting the legislation creating the Interstate Highway System". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore,_Sr.

Al Gore Junior, the former US vice president, "promoted legislation that funded an expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, and helping to develop the Internet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_techno...

Al Gore certainly saw the parallels with what his father had done, and the "information superhighway" phrase was a direct reference.

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#77

Post by scholia »

Animats wrote: post #61
gglitch wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are micropayments worse than the current web? People have differing opinions on the advertising-pays-for-content-so-don't-block-it issue, but are you referring to something technical?

No, just the general failure of the pay-to-read model. Other than the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist, few general publications with a paywall make money. They all have large, worldwide reporting staffs. Nobody is going to pay to read your blog. Pando Daily is trying pay-to-read. It's too soon to tell how that will work out.

Text is a rather small part of web traffic. Most bandwidth nowadays is used to deliver multimedia content (music and movies), much of it in real time.

Several people have written articles about how the Internet has been and is being changed to work as a more efficient video distribution network, which is a long way from the original idea.....

Some of that is paid for by subscriptions (eg Netflix, Spotify) though I assume the vast majority is -- like most radio and television -- paid for by advertising.

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#78

Post by michaelchisari »

Animats wrote: post #61
gglitch wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are micropayments worse than the current web? People have differing opinions on the advertising-pays-for-content-so-don't-block-it issue, but are you referring to something technical?

No, just the general failure of the pay-to-read model. Other than the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist, few general publications with a paywall make money. They all have large, worldwide reporting staffs. Nobody is going to pay to read your blog. Pando Daily is trying pay-to-read. It's too soon to tell how that will work out.

The NYT/WSJ/Economist model is too exclusionary and the pricing isn't ideal.

I'm watching Blendle closely, because their model of micropayments for news content, mixed with no-questions-asked refunds I think could be huge.

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#79

Post by dredmorbius »

gglitch wrote: post #56
Animats wrote: post #48

Kahle's approach works only for static content. It's not hard to distribute static content; BitTorrent does it just fine. The Internet Archive stores static content. Kahle thinks in terms of static content, because that's what the Internet Archive does. But it's less of the Web today. Despite that, it's good to have a way to distribute static content. Academic publishing, after all, is almost all static content. That…

Why are micropayments worse than the current web? People have differing opinions on the advertising-pays-for-content-so-don't-block-it issue, but are you referring to something technical?

Multiple reasons, though many boil down to Gresham's Law or similar: it's difficult to assess the quality of information, particularly when disaggregated. Most media advances have occurred through bundling rather than unbundling options: magazines, books (collected parchments, monthly serials), subscriptions. Even advertising-supported broadcast and Web models work by aggregating product, though in this case, eyeballs sold to advertisers.

See:

"Why Information Goods and Markets are a Poor Match" https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vm2da/why_inf...

Nick Szabo: "The Mental Accounting Barrier to Micropayments" http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html

Jacob Nielsen tries to make the opposite case. He's wrong. "The Case For Micropayments" http://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-case-for-micropayments/

I see a mix of some advertising, patronage, and a content syndication system similar to the existing performance payment model for music (broadcast, commercial establishment use) via ASCAP and the Harry Fox agency as most likely: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes...

See Phil Hunt's UK proposal: "A broadband tax for the UK?" http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-fo...

Re: Locking the Web Open: A Call for a Distributed Web

#80

Post by bsder »

api wrote: post #50
schoen wrote: post #49

I'm happy to see this article, and it reminds me of things that others have been talking about for some time (for example, the "Redecentralize" community). I've participated in some file-sharing litigation which has made it very clear to me that decentralized P2P systems are not inherently more anonymous than other technologies. In fact, there's a cottage industry of P2P monitoring companies that participate as peers…

The only mechanism I'm aware of that truly allows anonymity over your own connection (or a connection that can be tied to you) is onion routing. On top of that, you must do it from a separate device or isolated VM to prevent hardware fingerprinting. Anything less than that is like using snake oil crypto: it might make you feel good, but it's not really there.

> Anything less than that is like using snake oil crypto: it might make you feel good, but it's not really there.

While technically true, it doesn't help the situation.

Against the NSA, yeah, you have to be perfect. However, most adversaries are not the NSA.

Encryption on the wire stops random eavesdropping on you while someone else is a target. Having your mail store on a colocated box instead of Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo means that someone has to get a warrant and physically access your machine rather than filling in an automated request and having it turned over.

It's a modification on the old joke: "Sure, if the tiger is after me, I have to outrun the tiger. But if the tiger is simply hungry, I just have to outrun you."

Post reply on HN